April 28, 2013

1. At the end of a discussion of the Boston bombing, David Gregory asks "[W]hat are you really focused on that you’d like the intelligence community and the FBI to answer?"

REP. PETER KING: I think it’s important to know are there other people involved in this threat? Are there others that are still out there?... Are there family members or people in-- in the community? That’s very important to find out. Also, what did cause them to radicalize? Was it done here? Was it done overseas? Was it done over the internet? What caused that to happen? How can we stop it in the future? Also ask why the FBI is not cooperating more with the law enforcement? Why they did not give vital evidence to the NYPD about another possible attack.

GREGORY: This is that you think a failure that needs to be learned from?

...I wonder how many people realized at the end when he did his-- you know, there’s always this part at the end where they get serious for a minute, and it’s usually the part where president say, you know, I think the press has a good job to do and I understand what they have to do. He didn’t say that. He wasn’t very complimentary of the press. You know, we all can do better. He was-- it did seem-- I thought his pot shots joke wise and then the serious stuff about the internet, the rise of the internet media and social media and all that stuff. He hates it. Okay. He hates this part of the media. He really thinks that the sort of the buzzification, this isn’t just about BuzzFeed or Politico, and all the stuff, but he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it. And I think he was just trying to make that clear last night.

3. Gregory asks Tony Blair about his "now infamous meeting in the Azores" with George Bush, "at a very delicate time for [Blair] politically back home." Referring to the Iraq invasion, did Bush tell Blair: "back out if you need to, don’t do this, don’t stand by me when you have to go back and address parliament if it’s going to cost you your leadership"? Blair says:

He did say that. I mean, he-- he made it clear that, you know, he understood the-- the huge political difficulties I had and that-- that I shouldn’t, as it were, put my own premiership on the line. It was more important in-- in a way, to him, I think, that I stayed. But my attitude was that, you know, there are lots of things in politics where-- where you-- you’ll compromise and you’ll maybe back off exactly what you think you should do and, you know, these are often the run of the mill everyday types of issues. When it comes to issues of war and peace and-- and life and death, I think your-- your-- I came to the conclusion your proper obligation to your own country is to do what you think is right....

GREGORY: In this library, the president has decided not to separate Iraq-- out Iraq. Iraq is presented as part and parcel of the war on terrorism, which is how he saw it. But won’t history judge that as a false impression that this was a war of choice that became a misadventure in the eyes of so many?

MR. BLAIR: I think, you know, the controversy around that, I mean, around how you categorize it, will remain. But what I found was that, you see, removing Saddam happened within a matter of weeks. You then spent the next, you know, eight-- nine years in a different type of battle and that was a battle against precisely the forces that are trying to destabilize the Middle East today al Qaeda on the one side, Iran on the other side, and this toxic cocktail, if you like, of religion, politics, ethnicity, tribalism. So, I mean, I never said the two things were linked in that direct sense, 9/11 and Iraq, I think the difficulties we ended up encountering in Iraq were difficulties that arose from precisely this-- this force of terror unleashed by religious extremism and I think that’s the, you know, frankly, what we still face today...

4. I thought "toxic cocktail... of religion, politics, ethnicity, tribalism" was a very helpful phrase to those of us who shrink from criticizing anything that contains an element of religion (other than America's majority religion). Blair also used the phrase "an ideology based on a perversion of religion" and equated it to the violent political ideologies that are not religious and that we don't hesitate to criticize:

[There] are various groups, Islamist groups, that I’m afraid don’t have the same concept of democracy or freedom that we do.... I'm afraid, that this-- this ideology is being pumped around websites, is being encouraged by people in many different parts of the world and it’s-- and it’s there and it’s very hard for us to deal with. The first obligation of a government is to try and protect its people, but then you’ve got to-- you’ve got to cast out this ideology. I mean, I think this is very similar to the fight we faced in the 20th century against first of all fascism and then revolutionary communism. You know, it’s an ideology. It’s not got one command and control center, it's not a-- you know, you’re not talking about a country, but you are talking about an ideology based on a perversion of religion... which has an enormous force. If you don’t deal with this issue, this long-term question, this ideology based on-- on a perversion of the religion of Islam, you are going to end up fighting this for a long time.

5. And here's a nice tribute to Bush from Blair:

And President Obama actually put his finger on it when he said it’s impossible to know George Bush and not like him. So, you know, often people say to me back home, they say, come on, you didn’t like him really, did you? And I say, you can totally disagree with him but as a human being he is a someone of immense character and genuine integrity. So, you know, you can say-- people have different views about decisions, but there’s a very few people who-- who don’t like him and respect him as a person.

Actually, I have a problem with that phrase. It implies an opinion about the true form of a religion. Who is to say what the real religion is and what the perversion of it is? I would refrain -- in political discourse -- from making any assertions about what version of a religion is true (particularly when it is no your own religion). And the fact that one thing is a "perversion" of something else isn't what matters. The later thing that distorts something else could be better or innocuous.

The real point is that religions are powerful and embedded in human tradition. They're not going away, they do a lot of good, and most people need something in this category. But they can justify the worst things people do and cause a lot of harm, so we need to figure out how to keep people from falling into the really bad manifestations of religion.

"Toxic" was a good word of Blair's. We should be careful about calling somebody else's religion "toxic," but that should be the question: When is this toxic, like Naziism? And when it is toxic, our usual policy of leaving people alone with their religion is trumped by our need to protect ourselves from harm.

Sounds like he thinks Choom and company got caught with their pants down.

His question about (indirectly) a possible third bomber, however, is the crux of the issue. They had a "lockdown" for Joker and Tamer, but seem to be content to speculate about someone who might be the brains (not hard in this case) of the operation.

I thought "toxic cocktail... of religion, politics, ethnicity, tribalism" was a very helpful phrase to those of us who shrink from criticizing anything that contains an element of religion (other than America's majority religion).

I was thinking along these lines a couple of days ago. If you strip away the religion angle on any and all of these Islamist terrorists, they are just murderers. In fact, they are hiding behind the protection that a civil society gives to religions and people who follow them. It is a mistake on our part to think that they follow ANY flavor of Islam. We should completely take that away from them and call them murderers.

Continuing my previous comment, the murderers are often state sponsored operatives. And the state sponsors are using the religion too to buy cover. But their motive is purely political as in death by thousand cuts by employing these murderers on states and countries that are more powerful.

Actually, I have a problem with that phrase. It implies an opinion about the true form of a religion. Who is to say what the real religion is and what the perversion of it is? I would refrain -- in political discourse -- from making any assertions about what version of a religion is true (particularly when it is no your own religion). And the fact that one thing is a "perversion" of something else isn't what matters. The later thing that distorts something else could be better or innocuous.

But if you said that satanism was the true form of CHristianity there is grounds enough to say that such an interpretation is false. You can know a religion in part based on who the holiest person in it is, and then say whether there is a perversion from that message.In the case of Jesus, you can't really argue that he was a warmonger or taught warmongering as a guiding philosophy.

MOhammad though you can say was a warmonger. He was a LITERAL warlord. And a brigand, and an assasin,all based on what he taught.

And since Islam is all about submitting to the will of Allah and the prophet spoke for him, diverging from the Prophet's teachings is tantatmount to blasphemy.

"Iraq is a diversion from the REAL war on Terror" was the common refrain of the left when Bush was going to war in Iraq. Which sounds an awful lot like the left was saying the chose to go to Afghanistan and not Iraq. i.e. We SHOULD be fighting THERE and not diverting resources over this other war here, this war of choice.

Only, if you are saying there is a REAL war of teror and you are choosing to fight that war over the diversionary one, you've chosen your war of choice.

So, Afghanistan was a war of choice. As was Obama's decisoin to go into Libya. See how it involves decision making?

IF there's decision making involved about whether to go to war or not, it's a war of choice (if you choose to go to war). I can't think of a single war this doesn't apply.

Inga wrote:Afghanistan was no more a war of choice than entering a war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. Jay you are batting 0 today.

So you're arguing that in neither case did we make a choice to go to war? Both were wars of choice.In the case of Afghansitan, plenty of liberals were at the time saying we shouldn't invade Afghanistan.Why could we not have chosen to listen to their counsel?

I misunderstood his point, somewhat. His idea, "I'm making the rhetorical point that it is a war of choice", is perfectly valid as an abstraction.

I see where he's going with it and it's perfectly realistic.

In the end, some wars are necessitated by domestic political concerns at the mass level, as well as anything else. Read some of the Northern press right after fort Sumter and the mood was clearly similar to that after Pearl Harbor.

Choice: Choice consists of the mental process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them.

SO, during Afghanistan and WWII there was no process of judging the merits of multiple options and judging one or more of them?Isn't declaring war a choice? Isn't congress voting to give a president authority to do stuff a choice? Any number of congresmen could have CHOSEN no. In fact, I'm pretty sure Dennis Kuninich voted against the Afghanistan war as well as the Iraq war.

Why did we enter WW2? We were attacked, why did we go into Afghanistan, because the Taliban were harboring Al Queda who attacked us.

Who attacked us in the case of Iraq?

The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11. Was it necesary to invade the country as opposed to sending in a seal team and taking out OBL? or a drone strike? And you can go into wars when you aren't attacked. All you are doing is applying submective judgement. Your choice means that there was no choice. You disagree with the choice means that it was a war of choice.

I wonder if Inga can conceptualize that the US could have responded to the 9/11 attacks by pulling out the entirely military footprint from the Middle East and stopping weapons sales and foreign aid to Israel.

Althouse wrote:Actually, I have a problem with that phrase. It implies an opinion about the true form of a religion. Who is to say what the real religion is and what the perversion of it is?Blair is a statist. I imagine that Blair considers any form of a religion that opposes the statist project to be a perversion of religion. The aim of Christianity is to reconcile Man (collectively and individually) with God. The need for reconciliation is the result of Adam's rebellion, aka original sin. The mechanism of reconciliation is the birth and death of Jesus. This, in effect, undid the sin of Adam. A door that was once closed is now open to us.I think that this is a pretty straightforward, orthodox, and non-sectarian description of the purpose of Christianity.What is the purpose of Islam? Can it be put as succinctly as I've described the purpose of Christianity?

Any who opposes the Crusades and values intellectual consistency must also oppose all African freedom movements and support Apartheid rule and oppose the ANC. All three were attempts at reconquest against an outside invader. Indeed, of the three the Crusades were the most altruistic because it was outsiders helping locals liberate themselves.

For those people who think that Terrorism should be handled like a domestic criminal act going to War to fight The Taliban (who didn't attack us) was deemed as a war of choice and a bad choice at that.

And even if you thought sending in troops was not a war of choice, keeping troops there certainly was.

Did we have to nation build and occupy Afghanistnan? Did Obama have to escalate in Afghanistan? All choices.

Here's Wikipedias refrence to the start of the war in Afghanistan:

"The same day, a grand council of over 1,000 Muslim clerics from across Afghanstan, which had convened at the request of the Taliban leadership to decide the fate of bin Laden, issued a fatwa, expressing sadness for the deaths in the 9/11 attacks, urging bin Laden to leave their country, and calling on the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to conduct an independent investigation of "recent events to clarify the reality and prevent harassment of innocent people."[80] The fatwa went on to warn that should the United States not agree with its decision and invade Afghanistan, "jihad becomes an order for all Muslims."[80] White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer rejected the response, saying the time for talk had ended and it was time for action."

Sounds like a choice to me. Did we have to say the time for talk is ended and now is the time for action? No of course not. We could have taken the case to the UN, like the Taliban wanted. This is not a commentary on whether the choice was a good one or not. Only that saying Afghanistan WASN"T a war of choice is ludicrous.

All Inga is really saying is she agrees with the choice to invdade Afghanistan. Well I agreed with that choice and also the choice to go to Iraq. And what of it? I'm not going to make some stupid argument that one didn't involved a choice at all. They both did.

Derek Brown wrote:Any who opposes the Crusades and values intellectual consistency must also oppose all African freedom movements and support Apartheid rule and oppose the ANC.LEts not also forget that the Crusades were a response to CENTURIES of Islamic assaults on Christian lands. Why do typical lefties, always cite the Crusades, but never mention the wars of Islam taking over Christian land as far into Europe as Spain before any Crusdades ever occured.

Inga said...Iraq didn't harbor our attackers, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Honeypot theory. Iraq was flat and open, offering a level playing field to kill more insurgents. And we killed a lot of insurgents. Lots of non local insurgents.

Perhaps, had we committed the same numbers to Afghanistan instead, we could have killed the same number, but the American body count would have been even higher. It's just the terrain and the type of equipment we field.

Of course the Robert Cooks will say we should have stayed the hell out of the Middle East and instead we should have appeased them; we should have tried to bend to their will; we should have adapted our ways to fit their ways because we offend them and that has to stop.

Inga wrote:If the most powerful nation on earth has been attacked, and does not retaliate, they lose their position as the most powerful nation on earth, they are then viewed as weak, cowardly.

Surrender isn't an option, neither was the choice to say OUT of the country that harbored our attackers. It's not a difficult concept.

Apparently it is a difficult concept for you since you seem to be grasping for what choice means.

OF course we had a choice to stay out of the country that attacked us. We could have treated terrorism like a criminal act. We could have brought it to the UN, we could have set up no fly zones and sanctioned Afghanistan. WE could have sent in drones, we could have sent in a SEAL team.

Following your logic, once it became apparent that OBL was in Pakistan our only option was an all out war. YEt we sent in a seal team.

THis is not me saying that I disagree with the CHOICE to go to war with Afghanistan. Only its BEYOND RETARDED to say that we had no choice in the matter.

Vichy France had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Why'd we invade Algeria then. Japanese emperor worship is as close to petit bourgeoise German nationalism as Islamic fundementalism is to pan Arab nationlism of the Saddam variety. Why was it ok to conflate the first two in WW2 and then not ok to conflate the second two during the war on terror. Keep in mind Germany never fired on American plans in neutral air space.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer.

Honeypot theory. Iraq was flat and open, offering a level playing field to kill more insurgents. And we killed a lot of insurgents. Lots of non local insurgents.

Then there was the idea posed by Richard Clarke that OBL would boogey off to Baghdad when the fighting got tough.

Then there was the idea that Al Qaeda was loooking to purchase things like nunkes, and here we had a country that had been defying us for close to a decade. So much so that the previous president, a democrat no less had said enough is enough, we need a regime change and enacted the Iraq Liberation Act. Not to mention the UN passing 15 resolutions all dealing with Iraq refuisng to cooperate.

"Put aside whether or not fighting Germany after Pearl Harbor was a war of choice, it was certainly a choice to focus on the European Theatre rather than Pacific. "

Hitler did us an enormous favor by declaring war on us before we did the same on him. Had he not done so, the decision that Roosevelt made would have been far more controversial.

What Bush did in Iraq was somewhat similar in that he believed that the focus of aggressive Islam was Iraq, given their invasion of Kuwait and the discovery of a nuclear program after Gulf War I that was far further along than we had believed.

History will judge whether it was a mistake.

Islam was an aggressive religion when founded and almost the opposite of Christianity. Christianity got sidetracked by politics in the Middle Ages. Islam has never had a reformation and its aggression was checked by its failure as an economic system. Now, it has been able to use western technology to attack the west. Its economics still doesn't work.

Also, if we're going to attack countries that harbor terrorists who attacked us lets not remember that Ramzi Yousef the guy who masterminded the first attack on the WTC had an Iraqi passport and fled to Iraq. There is also evidence that Iraq provided him with a house and a mohthly salary.Not to say that there is therefore a direct connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, only it doesn't mean that there isn't either. Why are they paying him, Why are they giving him a house?

Oh, and did I mention he was related to Khalleid Sheick Mohammad the logistical planner for 9/11.

Now we can debate if Bush's strategy was the correct one, but the Inga's of the world refuse to acknowledge there was a strategy.

I recall lefties arguing that we fought in Iraq because W had leftover daddy issues about the First Gulf War. If that argument is acceptable then I should be allowed to posit that Obamacare is all about mommy issues POTUS had with those "mean insurance" companies who "killed" his mom.

Jay wrote:Osama bin Laden’s men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer.

It's weird how Osama bin Laden saw the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq while liberals, like Inga never do.

As for "peaceful" Christianity, the way Norway was Christianized was that St. Olav traveled around the country with an army and gave the locals in the several districts a choice: Accept White-Christ or we kill you.

The Americans say they believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has long been under US scrutiny for suspected ties to al-Qaeda, wrote the undated 17-page document. Zarqawi is also believed to be operating in Iraq.

The document was made available on Sunday to The New York Times, with an accompanying translation made by the military.

The memo says extremists are failing to enlist support inside the country, and have been unable to scare the Americans into leaving, and even laments Iraq's lack of mountains in which to take refuge.

Christianity's adherents have become more Christian as the years have gone by. It is hardly surprising that a Christian barely removed from going on viking raids would not have perfect understanding of what a Christian ought to be. Constantine was still a Roman, Charlemagne was still a Frank, Olaf was still a Viking. So what? What would those men have done with no Christian restraints at all? It takes a while for the yeast to work through the cultural loaf.

Hagar-I'm just trying to come up with a more neutral idea of what is and what is not a perversion of a religion.If you accept my definition, then what St. Olaf did was not a perversion of Christianity. It might have been wrong, but it doesn't contradict my definition. If St. Olaf had told the people of Norway that Christ could do nothing for them and they had sacrifice infants to reconcile themselves to God, that would be a perversion of Christianity.How, exactly, would you judge if a particular Muslim practice is perversion of it? How would Tony Blair know that it is?

"As for "peaceful" Christianity, the way Norway was Christianized was that St. Olav traveled around the country with an army and gave the locals in the several districts a choice: Accept White-Christ or we kill you."

"As for "peaceful" Christianity, the way Norway was Christianized was that St. Olav traveled around the country with an army and gave the locals in the several districts a choice: Accept White-Christ or we kill you."

Lem: "If we hadn't been attacked on 9/11 2001, I doubt very much Bush would have woken up one morning saying 'get Rumsfeld on the phone, I have an idea'."

Not true.

Bush's brain trust--men like Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc.--had been arguing for years before 9-11 that we needed to take out Saddam.

And the reason they wanted to take out Saddam was that they had long suspected that Saddam was as much of a terrorist threat to America as al-Qaeda, if not more so. (Of course, that turned out to be false.)

In a debate with Al Gore in 2000, Bush had argued for a "humble" (his word) foreign policy, and eschewed nation-building.

After which Bill Kristol wrote a piece in the Weekly Standard that said in so many words, "Don't worry, we'll break him of that!"

"Osama bin Laden’s men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits."

THat there sounds like a war of choice on Osama's part. and a bad choice it was. Notwithstanding the caterwauling of the Inga's of the world.

sinz52 wrote:And the reason they wanted to take out Saddam was that they had long suspected that Saddam was as much of a terrorist threat to America as al-Qaeda, if not more so. (Of course, that turned out to be false.)

So why did Bill Clinton want regime change in Iraq too? Was he a neocon ahead of the times. Was Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol whispering in his ear too?Or, did he just deal with Sadaam enough to say "enough is enough" and pass the Iraq Liberation Act?

Also, it might have had something to do with the perception that Sadaam hadn't actually disarmed. I mean that was kind of the assumption that Clinton had when he left office and right before Bush took office. Why would it be unreasonable for Bush to assume the same threat level that Bill Clinton saw AND ACTED UPON?

Even though WMD's were stressed as one of the primary reasons to go to war, they weren't the only reasons stressed. NOt by a long shot. If you go back to Clinton passing hte Iraq Liberatoin Act it's the same exact rationale that Bush used to go to war. REgime change was in fact US policy as far back as 1998. When did Bush take office again?

And Æthelflæd, The Tudors were 500 years closer to our own times, and in fact are considered to have begun "modern times," but they were still burning each other at the stake in the name of "peaceful" Christianity.

"The hard fact is, so long as Sadaam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people.the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD.

THE BEST WAY TO END THAT THREAT ONCE AND FOR is with a new Iraqi govt, a govt ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A govt that respects teh rights of it's people.Bringing change in baghdad will take time and effort."

Pop quiz. Who said that, and when? and why? Was it a NEOCON? Or was it the keynote speaker for reelecting Barack Obama at the last democratic convention? Or was it Bush?

My guess, if I were a complete ignorant puss filled pustule like most libs, would be Bush. It sounds like a neocon thing to say. It mentions regime change AND democracy in Iraq.

Only that guess would be wrong.This was said long before Bush took office, and it was in fact the stated policy based on the person who said it to effect regime change in Iraq.Bush simply carried out the policy, successfully I might add.

El Pollo Real: "Honeypot theory. Iraq was flat and open, offering a level playing field to kill more insurgents. And we killed a lot of insurgents. Lots of non local insurgents."

After-the-fact rationalization.

That was NOT the stated rationale for the Iraq war.

Nor was it the reason why Bush's advisers wanted to take out Saddam.

There's been a lot of goalpost-moving on these wars. The Afghanistan War devolved from "Get Osama at Tora Bora" to "Support the rights of Afghan women!"

The Iraq War was a disaster, both strategically and tactically. The worst American military blunder since McNamara's Vietnam.

4/28/13, 5:54 PM sinz52 said...El Pollo Real: "Honeypot theory. Iraq was flat and open, offering a level playing field to kill more insurgents. And we killed a lot of insurgents. Lots of non local insurgents."

After-the-fact rationalization.

That was NOT the stated rationale for the Iraq war.

Nor was it the reason why Bush's advisers wanted to take out Saddam.

There's been a lot of goalpost-moving on these wars. The Afghanistan War devolved from "Get Osama at Tora Bora" to "Support the rights of Afghan women!"

The Iraq War was a disaster, both strategically and tactically. The worst American military blunder since McNamara's Vietnam.

4/28/13, 5:54 PM sinz52 said...El Pollo Real: "Honeypot theory. Iraq was flat and open, offering a level playing field to kill more insurgents. And we killed a lot of insurgents. Lots of non local insurgents."

After-the-fact rationalization.

That was NOT the stated rationale for the Iraq war.

Nor was it the reason why Bush's advisers wanted to take out Saddam.

There's been a lot of goalpost-moving on these wars. The Afghanistan War devolved from "Get Osama at Tora Bora" to "Support the rights of Afghan women!"

The Iraq War was a disaster, both strategically and tactically. The worst American military blunder since McNamara's Vietnam.

4/28/13, 5:54 PM____________________

So important that your little wanking finger hit the keyboard three times.

Your post smells vaguely Sullivanistic, sinz52.

Did you also blog torture porn of Uday Hussein's torture rooms to assuage your guilt?

The obvious follow-up question to Blair's "toxic cocktail" of tribalism, religion, and etc., is "Since Saudi Arabia is a tribal theocratic monarchy, isn't it the living definition of a toxic cocktail?"

Not only did AQ get drawn into a fight they lost in Iraq, they wrote memos whining about it:

The writer contends that the American efforts to set up Iraqi security services have succeeded in depriving the insurgents of allies, particularly in a country where kinship networks are extensive.

"The problem is you end up having an army and police connected by lineage, blood and appearance," the document says. "When the Americans withdraw, and they have already started doing that, they get replaced by these agents who are intimately linked to the people of this region."

With some exasperation, the author writes: "We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases.

"I wonder what Commandante Zero would do in the face of Pearl Harbor."

Given that Obama has continued Bush's criminal "wars of choice" (i.e., wars of aggression rather than defense) and expanding them throughout the ME, why do you doubt he would have responded militarily?

After Dolf declared war, FDR still only asked that a state of war be recognized; it was still deemed too politically risky to openly declare war on Germany. In fact, at several points in '42 and '43, the US Joint Chiefs were ready to take the stand that we pull out of Europe and throw everything against Japan.

PS Torch was not the first offensive against the Axis.

There were a few recon ops by the Alaska Scouts in the Aleutians, followed by the Guadalcanal landings, the Rangers' participation in the Dieppe raid, Carlson's raid on Makin Island, and the offensive in Papua.

Training for 9/11was carried out at Salman Pak (we found the airliner mockups after we invaded) and Zarqawi had been there for some time. Moreover, Czech intelligence told us that Iraqi officials escorted some of the hijackers to the final planning meetings for 9/11.

"Training for 9/11was carried out at Salman Pak (we found the airliner mockups after we invaded) and Zarqawi had been there for some time. Moreover, Czech intelligence told us that Iraqi officials escorted some of the hijackers to the final planning meetings for 9/11."

"By the same logic, preventing terrorism requires close scrutiny of Muslim men leaning toward violent jihad. Had they followed that logic, the FBI could have prevented the bombing.

But with each passing day, it becomes maddeningly clear that political correctness was complicit in the failure. President Obama’s stubborn refusal to connect the dots to Islam isn’t just a personal tic. It reflects the policy he has spread throughout the bureaucracy, including law enforcement and the military.

At the least, orders to “see no Islam evil” created extra hurdles for those trying to keep America safe. At the worst, they opened the door to the bombers."

Would it be too much for Iraq War opponents (or proponents) to read the damn congressional authorization for military action against Iraq? It's not a secret: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114/text

The resolution was approved by a bipartisan majority in the house and senate. A majority of Dems in the Senate voted for it.Read the frikkin' thing. It lays out exactly why we resorted to military force and the legal and constitutional justifications for it.Note especially that the First Gulf War ended with a conditional cease fire, not a peace treaty.

Actually, I have a problem with that phrase. It implies an opinion about the true form of a religion."

The only other logical alternative to this is that there is something wrong with the religion itself. People have come to that conclusion about Islam but it is most likely a strategic mistake for a politician to (publically) come to that conclusion.

And the were no Al Queda in Iraq until after the start of the war, in the presence of a power vacuum.

so? If the premise is you fight al Qaeda, and al Qaeda comes to a different front to fight you on, wouldnt you fight them on that front? Its like you don't get the concept that the enemy can, like, move around. That wars can be fought on multiple fronts, that sometimes the front is not chosen by us.

If Zarqawi didn't bring al Qaeda to Iraq, would you still consider the Iraq war the worst foreign policy blunder ever, or whatever the talking point is?

We wiped out Sadaam's army pretty quickly. But for al Qaeda making the strategic gamble to send jihadis to fight us there the insurgency wouldn't be near as bad.

[Pres. Obama] really thinks that the sort of the buzzification, this isn’t just about BuzzFeed or Politico, and all the stuff, but he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it.

Pres. Obama hates alternative media because he can't control it. Because they're beyond his ability, short of outright censorship, to hurt them.

"Yes, the ME, and the world, would be a better place without America Cook!"

There'd be far fewer innocent dead people, for sure!

Beyond that, we'd be better off if we'd never decided to invade the ME...fewer dead and maimed and disabled Americans; far less of our treasure squandered on carnage, benefitting (enriching) only merchants of death; fewer potential "blowback" terror attacks to fear, given that there would be far fewer people in the ME with murderous grievances against us for invading their lands and killing their loved ones.

One of the good things about the Iraq war is that it sucked al Qaeda to Iraq where they were destroyed. Its a shame that Bush's surge finally won the war though with all the loss of American lives, Obama threw it all away by leaving without securing the country.

"'And President Obama actually put his finger on it when he said it’s impossible to know George Bush and not like him.'"

It doesn't matter if he's likable; there are plenty of "likable" people who are killers or criminals. Heck, Josef Stalin was reportedly a "people person" and quite personable, and Hitler's secretary spoke very warmly of Hitler as a boss.

Hannah Arendt coined the memorable phrase "the banality of evil" while writing about the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961, as she observed that ordinary people--as Eichmann seemed to her to be--can and do commit terrible crimes without ever seeing themselves as monsters, but only as doing their jobs.

(I am acquainted with someone who disagrees entirely with Bush's politics and actions as President, yet she was in Washington during his Presidency for an event having to do with her job, an event at which Bush made an appearance. As she told me, he seemed like someone who would be great to spend time and enjoy a barbecue with.)

After seeing Libya and Syria, I think we now know that Iraq's civil war was less about us invading them, but more about what happens when an old regime collapses.

And of course, everyone forgets that Iraq kept multiple WMD programs hidden for years until Kamel, the son-in-law, defected telling us about them. Read up on Iraq's "full and final complete declarations" on bio weapons, for example.

Remember those Anthrax letters? did we ever solve who did those?

And how about the first WTC bombing - there was an Iraqi connection to that one.

This is not to mention Iraqi funding of terror in Palestine, the regime's documented use of poison gas on Iran and its own people.

Sure, we could have kept him contained. Maybe. Everyone wanted sanctions lifted.

I think Saddam was put down after 9/11 because suddenly we realized mass terror was possible, and was possible in the homeland.

p.s. Keep in mind one of Bin Laden's biggest reasons for attacking America was that we had troops in the Kingdom. Why did we have troops in the Kingdom? Saddam Huessein.

Oh shock, the community organizer isn't good at "spreading the wealth around"

Note:WASHINGTON (AP) — The richest Americans got richer during the first two years of the economic recovery while average net worth declined for the other 93 percent of U.S. households, says a report released Tuesday.

The upper 7 percent of households owned 63 percent of the nation's total household wealth in 2011, up from 56 percent in 2009, said the report from the Pew Research Center, which analyzed new Census Bureau data released last month.

RE: All those bemoaning the Iraq war as bad, but Afghanastan as good.....

Do you understand the concept of fighting an enemy on the ground of your choice, and not their choice?

If I have an army, and my enemy has an army, the last thing I want to do is go to their prefered, prepared ground, and attack them where they are comfortable and have spent decades setting up their defenses.

I would rather draw the enemy to fight me in ground of my choosing, where I have advantages I can use against them.

Iraq was a battleground in a larger war, but it was the ground we choose to fight on. It is such a simple concept, but hard for some to grasp.

Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor. By the logic of those who disgree with the Iraq battleground, the only thing we should have done after Pearl Harbor was a direct attack on the Japanese mainland.

Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, why did we bother fighting them in other areas instead of just parachuting directly into Berlin.

It's a waste of time to discuss these topics with those who think that Iraq was a bad move. Critical thinking is impossible when you are already invested in a scenario you are unequipped to understand.

"What is the purpose of Islam? Can it be put as succinctly as I've described the purpose of Christianity?"

Waging war against the Kufr to impose islam and islamic law and advance the dominance of dar al islam over dar al harb(us). That's what Mohammad did and directed others to do. It's what all the current islamic theocracies have done - including the most recent: Afghanistan under the Taliban and Khomeinist Iran. It's what all the revolutionary islamic groups are currently doing . . . Al Shabob, Boko Haram, Al Nusra, all the various Islamiya groups, Hamas, the Malian "taliban," the chechen rebels, the revolutionary government in the Maldives, the islamists in Sudan, MILF, Abu Sayef and a thousand others who are simply styled "salafi" or "islamist." These groups gain converts, influence and money because they comport most accurately with the words and example of Mohammad.

It's a waste of time to discuss these topics with those who think that Iraq was a bad move. Critical thinking is impossible when you are already invested in a scenario you are unequipped to understand.

Remember Maureen Dowd's idiotic complaint of why don't they just send a couple guys to bin Laden's Tora Bora mancave and take him out?

Epiphyte-From what I've read, it is easier to justify violence against non-believers using the Koran than it is the NT (the part of the Bible that makes it a Christian holy book).I believe that, if you were to put the relationship between God and man in one word, the Christian word would be 'love'. The Islamic word would be 'obey'.

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal . . .

It's so ridiculous the sheer volume of speeches where Bill Clinton talks of Iraq and the danger it posed to the world, not to mention it's WMD aspirations and lack of cooperation. Not to mention history of us acting in ways that assumed Iraq posed a threat.All prior to Bush.

What's even more ridiculous is that people like Inga seem to think we can't do a google search to find this information. or that we weren't aware of the information when it was first spoken.

The Bush Lied People died shtick of the libs frankly insults our intelligence. And yet they keep repeating it.

And by the way, does this mean that Clinton in fact did wag the dog? Remember way back when Clinton was accused of carrying out a bomb strike on Iraq (where he suggested there was an Al Qaeda/Iraq linkage) and some suggested he only did that because he was in trouble because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and was trying to divert attention away from that affair?

Fast forward to the last democrat convention? Who do the dems trot out as their big gun, their star, the ONLY successful democrat president in decades. And he gets a big standing O. He's still got it.

Holy shit, is it possible that I have more respect for Clinton than dems and libs do? I mean, I actually believed that he was sincere about his actions concerning Iraq, and that he wasn't wagging the dog..

Original untruths are original sin: first U.S. ground forces to engage the enemy in an offensive manner after Pearl Harbor was Guadalcanal against the Japanese, August 1942, not as so many have stated already the North African invasion in November of 1942.

[Obama] really thinks that the sort of the buzzification, this isn’t just about BuzzFeed or Politico, and all the stuff, but he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it.

We're supposed to believe the man who lied that Bush refused to help Katrina victims because they were disproportionately black is concerned about where new media is pushing politial discourse? Only if he means he hates new media publicizing his efforts to demonize opponents.